Re: Some excerpts from AdobeXMP SDK Documentation

OK. The short answer is yes, but it is you, and not Jena
that is presuming string based semantics.

It was an ambiguous question and I have been attempting
to clarify the question in my response.

Your example  does not represent a predisposition of the Jena API
towards  string based interpretation of
inline literals but only illustrates that one *could* implement
an application using the Jena API which exibits such a
predisposition. One could also do the opposite in Jena.
Jena itself doesn't promote either view.

I can't say it any clearer than that.

Patrick


_____________Original message ____________
Subject:	Re: Some excerpts from AdobeXMP SDK Documentation
Sender:	ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date:		Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:27:33 +0300

At 16:22 26/09/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
[...]

> >
> > I suggested in:
> >
> >    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0284.html
> >
> >   [[model.contains(c, d, a.getProperty(b).getObject())]]
> >
> > was an accurate representation of the entailment.  Would you accept that?
>
>I would accept it as *one* possible string-based interpretation
>of inline literals expressed using the Jena API, but not any
>fixed string-based interpretation mandated nor even suggested by
>the Jena API.

The question was:

   Is the above expression an accurate representation of the entailment in 
the jena API?

I think that is a question which deserved a yes/no answer.  If you answer 
yes, then we can look for an equivalent in XMP.  I am not sure what your 
answer means.

Also you haven't responded to my difficulty in understanding what 
consistent test you are applying to reach your conclusions.

I doesn't seem like this discussion is making progress.  Time to end it 
perhaps.

Brian

Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 11:39:17 UTC